[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hCR9NV+2MF0iAJ5rHS2uiOgTnu=+yQRfpieDJQpQz22w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:09:46 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
virtio-fs@...hat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:08 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Dan,
>
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>
> > I'm going to take a look at how hard it would be to develop a kpartx
> > fallback in udev. If that can live across the driver transition then
> > maybe this can be a non-event for end users that already have that
> > udev update deployed.
>
> I just wanted to remind you that label-less dimms still exist, and are
> still being shipped. For those devices, the only way to subdivide the
> storage is via partitioning.
True, but if kpartx + udev can make this transparent then I don't
think users lose any functionality. They just gain a device-mapper
dependency.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists